Team Update 1-15-2013 [Archive]

Brandon_L

15-01-2013, 19:15

While in contact with the PYRAMID, a ROBOT

may not have its horizontal dimensions exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder relative to the ROBOT and

may not extend any part of itself beyond a vertical plane defined by a perimeter offset from the base of the PYRAMID by 54 in., see Figure 3-5b and Figure 3-5c.

Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.

Wait, what? Am I reading this wrong?

EDIT: Fig 3-5c explains it, I see it now.

Aren Siekmeier

15-01-2013, 19:17

Try again. They added G23-1, saying precisely the opposite.

To be precise, the 54" cylinder reorients with the robot WHEN touching the pyramid.

BigJ

15-01-2013, 19:21

And we just re-engineered our stuff to fit within relative to the floor (meaning some of it is possibly illegal now) :/

THE DYNAMO

15-01-2013, 19:43

I noticed that the word vertical is crossed out. does this means that we can be in a 54" oblique cylinder when not touching the pyramid?

Tem1514 Mentor

15-01-2013, 19:53

I'm really holding back, but did the GDC just change the task?

Darth Drew

15-01-2013, 19:55

The way I interpret it, vertical is crossed out because while in contact with the pyramid the cylinder isn't vertical

waialua359

15-01-2013, 19:55

Man,
I need some time to re-re-re-read the rules. :yikes:

Kevin Sevcik

15-01-2013, 19:57

Stupendous. Magnificent. I cannot express my gratitude and appreciation for the GDC changing this rule a week and a half after kickoff after we reluctantly scrapped our plans for a lifting and dumping robot.

Presumably all the 54" cylinder questions they were getting made them question whether anyone was actually going to attempt the end game, so they decided to relax the rules to make it easier.

Well at least they didn't reconsider after seeing several technically illegal robots at the week 1 regionals.

Andrew Remmers

15-01-2013, 20:01

So the 54 inches reorients with the robot, is this in relation to the bumpers? Or am I not seeing something here?

- Andrew

Chris is me

15-01-2013, 20:05

WOW. They answered this question completely differently in the Q&A and then change it a week later? With such a restrictive design requirement, how can the GDC possibly not have the details down?

Gregor

15-01-2013, 20:07

So our process was to design it, change it to make it work, and now find out we didn't have to change it? Yay?

Bob Steele

15-01-2013, 20:08

Here is the picture from the update... since this robot has no bumpers and no frame perimeter it is hard to tell but it does say robot relative...

Kevin Sevcik

15-01-2013, 20:09

Robot relative typically means relative to your starting/inspection configuration. Whatever orientation is vertical when you start the robot is the vertical direction for your robot throughout the match.

The reason this makes climbing easier is that you can tip your robot over and reach up to 84" vertical relative to your robot, which is a good bit farther than the 54" cylinder restricted you to.

THE DYNAMO

15-01-2013, 20:32

that gives a diagonal(which could become the true vertical when touching the pyramid)of nearly 100 in.(99.859). That makes it technically viable to sacrifice the legality of your own robot's climb to attach a winch to level 3 and bring 2 robots up with you, scoring 60 points.

efoote868

15-01-2013, 20:39

Makes the stair chair strategy viable.

THE DYNAMO

15-01-2013, 20:41

what is this 'stair chair' you speak of?

efoote868

15-01-2013, 20:49

http://www.bigskymobility.com/ManStairChair.jpg

Bring another "person" up with you.

s_forbes

15-01-2013, 21:21

Our climbing solution is now illegal.

We had clearly defined parameters at the beginning of the build season. Why on Earth would they change now?

yarudl

15-01-2013, 21:23

I hate everything 3 times.... Just kidding, this makes things easier but also more difficult. it means that our previous strategy is now illegal but simpler strategies are now legal and can be made lighter, cheaper and safer.

Tristan Lall

15-01-2013, 21:24

Robot relative typically means relative to your starting/inspection configuration. Whatever orientation is vertical when you start the robot is the vertical direction for your robot throughout the match.
I know that's a common and plausible definition, but I don't think it's necessarily obvious or universal. The flop-bots (http://www.firstrobotics.uwaterloo.ca/resources/galleries/drivetrains/drivetrains007.jpg) and unfolding (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15142) robots of yore are great thought exercises. Which side is really "up"?

FIRST should ask teams to designate a co-ordinate system relative to some component (e.g. with a sticker).1 All robot-relative restrictions should be measured with respect to that. Alternatively, starting/inspection configuration can be defined, and robot-relativity defined in relation to that.

Failing that, robot-relativity is ambiguous.

1 Don't use the frame perimeter. It's a trap. The definition allows for skew polygons and planar polygons not parallel to the floor.

commodoredl

15-01-2013, 21:28

I can't stand when FIRST does this. Why make it part of the rules if you're going to change said rules after a week? Crucial design elements are being set.

The one benefit I see from this is that it mirrors real world projects more closely as a learning tool, but man is it frustrating! Back to the drawing board!

Adam Freeman

15-01-2013, 21:29

Our climbing solution is now illegal.

We had clearly defined parameters at the beginning of the build season. Why on Earth would they change now?

Yep...our's too. 10 days in the game changes. :(

chadr03

15-01-2013, 21:31

I do not like this at all. I know it was difficult but we designed, prototyped, had a lot of the CAD work done, and had parts list ready to order in the morning. All for not, because our whole design is shot thanks to a mid-season rule change. Sorry move my the GDC in my opinion. Back to the drawing board I guess... ARRRRRG

Basel A

15-01-2013, 21:33

1 Don't use the frame perimeter. It's a trap. The definition allows for skew polygons and planar polygons not parallel to the floor.

Vertical is the normal to the plane of the ground relative to a robot on the ground at the start of the match. Besides, notice that flop-bots and unfolding bots haven't been used since the current era of bumpers (2009+). You could just use bumpers..

Littleboy

15-01-2013, 21:34

We find out that the bumpers count in the 54" cylinder.
Design Change.
Now we find this out.
And another design change is needed. At least this one will hopefully not be too drastic of a change.

pfreivald

15-01-2013, 21:38

Should I be worried that our design didn't change?

DampRobot

15-01-2013, 21:41

Why changes the rules at this point? Did the GDC just realize that climbing for 30 was hard? Luckily, this didn't change much for us, but it totally redefines the design challenge.

David Doerr

15-01-2013, 21:46

Aaaarrrrrrg! Blows our climbing design - and our chassis design - out of the water...

dellagd

15-01-2013, 21:49

Should I be worried that our design didn't change?

Neither does ours.

Even though this actually makes it easier for us, I cant believe FIRST is making such a huge change that actually makes some designs ILLEGAL after a week and a half. Unbelievable.

Tristan Lall

15-01-2013, 21:57

Vertical is the normal to the plane of the ground relative to a robot on the ground at the start of the match. Besides, notice that flop-bots and unfolding bots haven't been used since the current era of bumpers (2009+). You could just use bumpers..
G23-1 mentions verticalness in relation to the robot. Barring the degenerate case where the entire robot is always in a fixed orientation with respect to the ground, that's proof that we can't use the ground as the sole co-ordinate reference.

In terms of using bumper edges as the reference, there are similar issues. The bottom edge of a legal bumper can (in theory) be between 2.0 in and 5.5 in from the ground, meaning significant angles are possible.

Edit: I re-read your post, and may have misunderstood it the first time. Are you suggesting that we construct the robot-relative co-ordinate system based on something like the the starting bumper orientation and the ground normal? (Hopefully the floor protector doesn't figure into this.) Then, because the bumpers can't articulate, we can use them to observe the orientation of the robot-relative co-ordinates during the climb? That has interesting implications (like when bumpers fall off), but could be feasible. However, I don't think the rules support this interpretation to the exclusion of others.

Kusha

15-01-2013, 22:02

http://i.imgur.com/UYBIk.png

So is this not legal now?

Excuse the crude drawing

Bill_B

15-01-2013, 22:05

dellagd

15-01-2013, 22:13

http://i.imgur.com/UYBIk.png

So is this not legal now?

Excuse the crude drawing

Um, what exactly did you draw?

Taylor

15-01-2013, 22:15

Our design, our beautiful design, is in serious, serious question right now.
blog (http://frc1529.wordpress.com).
blarg.
ugh.
This.Inhales.Audibly.

Kusha

15-01-2013, 22:16

Um, what exactly did you draw?

Just a robot hanging on the first tier parallel with the ground.

MetalJacket

15-01-2013, 22:23

Just a robot hanging on the first tier parallel with the ground.

Unless you draw in some kind of dimensions for the robot, it's hard to say if it's legal or not. As long as no part of the robot exceeds a 54" diameter cylinder relative to the robot, you should be fine though.

BigJ

15-01-2013, 22:25

It has been a long day with robots of plastic and aluminum at both ends. We're slow and were doing full-scale modeling to determine our compliance with 54" rule in its prior form. Now I read of the rules change and that several teams are feeling that their initial designs are now illegal. This is where the tired part comes in. I'm having trouble imagining how something legal for the vertical cylinder is now illegal for a tilted one. I'm sure those are right, just in a FRC fog at the moment I guess.

If your robot was cimbing up the outside of a leg (and was short), with your starting configuration parallel to the leg, you had a >54 inch long ellipse to reach/manipulate/etc with.

edit: just imagine slicing a plane through a vertical 54 inch cylinder at a 60 degree angle.

edit2: this is only one example

Kusha

15-01-2013, 22:27

Unless you draw in some kind of dimensions for the robot, it's hard to say if it's legal or not. As long as no part of the robot exceeds a 54" diameter cylinder relative to the robot, you should be fine though.

OH, I didn't notice it was relative to the robot! Never mind.

Didn't read this:
may not have its horizontal dimensions exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder relative to the ROBOT and

yarudl

15-01-2013, 22:28

Our design, our beautiful design, is in serious, serious question right now.
blog (http://frc1529.wordpress.com).
blarg.
ugh.
This.Inhales.Audibly.

I'm sorry, but to the best of my understanding that design is now illegal. I can sympathize as my team is in the same place as yours. Our design is now illegal as well.

Djur

15-01-2013, 22:33

I'm happy to say that my team's level 3 climber design is still legal :D

Basel A

15-01-2013, 22:41

G23-1 mentions verticalness in relation to the robot. Barring the degenerate case where the entire robot is always in a fixed orientation with respect to the ground, that's proof that we can't use the ground as the sole co-ordinate reference.

In terms of using bumper edges as the reference, there are similar issues. The bottom edge of a legal bumper can (in theory) be between 2.0 in and 5.5 in from the ground, meaning significant angles are possible.

Edit: I re-read your post, and may have misunderstood it the first time. Are you suggesting that we construct the robot-relative co-ordinate system based on something like the the starting bumper orientation and the ground normal? (Hopefully the floor protector doesn't figure into this.) Then, because the bumpers can't articulate, we can use them to observe the orientation of the robot-relative co-ordinates during the climb? That has interesting implications (like when bumpers fall off), but could be feasible. However, I don't think the rules support this interpretation to the exclusion of others.

I did not spend as much time explaining my post as I could or should have, but you got the idea in your reread. I'm certainly not suggesting this is what's reflected in the current manual, but I do think this is would give results equivalent to both "common sense" and the likely interpretations of most referees. I'd challenge you or anyone else to suggest a potential rule that would be feasible and would contradict the the bumper-based model.

Note: Haven't figured out the rule that says bumpers must be "vertical." R24-E comes close, but doesn't quite do it.

MetalJacket

15-01-2013, 22:52

I did not spend as much time explaining my post as I could or should have, but you got the idea in your reread. I'm certainly not suggesting this is what's reflected in the current manual, but I do think this is would give results equivalent to both "common sense" and the likely interpretations of most referees. I'd challenge you or anyone else to suggest a potential rule that would be feasible and would contradict the the bumper-based model.

Note: Haven't figured out the rule that says bumpers must be "vertical." R24-E comes close, but doesn't quite do it.

The issue of level bumpers has been brought up in the Q&A. The bumpers do not necessarily need to be level so long as they are completely within the bumper zone (I believe 971 did this last year). So the bumpers won't necessarily be a perfect measure of normal to the robot, but given the variation in height possible while staying in the bumper zone, it's pretty close.

efoote868

15-01-2013, 22:55

I'm not trying to look flippant, but in the real world engineering specifications change all the time.
FRC: more like the real world than we could ever want.

Donut

15-01-2013, 23:01

Our design, our beautiful design, is in serious, serious question right now.
blog (http://frc1529.wordpress.com).
blarg.
ugh.
This.Inhales.Audibly.

I feel your pain. If we do climb our strategy likely involved flipping our frame off of the floor to give us a fairly long reach. Now I'm about 95% certain that design is illegal, I will have to do the math. It may be adaptable by rotating our frame relative to our climbing mechanism but it will almost certainly put our CG in an undesirable location.

This is a disappointing ruling from the GDC. Major changes like this shouldn't be necessary to the size restrictions, which are some of the most crucial rules teams have to design around. Coming in week 2 as teams are finishing prototypes and some have begun ordering parts is the real kicker.

Rangel(kf7fdb)

15-01-2013, 23:05

Looks like we found a relatively simple solution to fix our climbing for this update. However, this could have easily been a complete disaster for us since we are integrating all of our functions into one mechanism this year. I feel for all the other teams who will not have as easy of a time making their designs legal if they will even be able to use it at all.

Kevin Sevcik

15-01-2013, 23:08

I'm not trying to look flippant, but in the real world engineering specifications change all the time.
FRC: more like the real world than we could ever want.Note that in the real world, engineering specifications are agreed to and contracted. When the client comes in later trying to change them drastically and invalidate the current design, there's usually deadline extensions, bills for the engineering change, etc.

Nemo

15-01-2013, 23:15

I'm surprised by this change since they already answered it in the opposite way previously. Better now than later, I guess, but this is a question that could have reasonably been anticipated and clarified before the game was released.

This didn't blow our climbing concept out of the water, but I'll be watching closely for a bumper clarification that has the potential to cause us trouble.

efoote868

15-01-2013, 23:22

Note that in the real world, engineering specifications are agreed to and contracted. When the client comes in later trying to change them drastically and invalidate the current design, there's usually deadline extensions, bills for the engineering change, etc.

Usually not the case with your boss though.

rsegrest

15-01-2013, 23:39

I'm not trying to look flippant, but in the real world engineering specifications change all the time.
FRC: more like the real world than we could ever want.

However, we are talking about teams who have limited budgets and who in some cases have sent out drawings etc. to be machined. Many of us do not have the money or resources to have parts remachined etc. Fortuntately for my team (whose design is now not legal) we had not ordered parts or sent out CAD drawings for machining and we may still have time to go back to the drawing board.

I agree with the others who call this a bad move and bad form on the part of the GDC especially when this was discussed completely in a mentor call and it directly contradicts an earlier answer in the formal Q&A (which is also hosted by the GDC). :mad:

dellagd

15-01-2013, 23:44

Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

Ian Curtis

15-01-2013, 23:50

However, we are talking about teams who have limited budgets and who in some cases have sent out drawings etc. to be machined. Many of us do not have the money or resources to have parts remachined etc.

I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...

As others have pointed out this is probably the optimal (fewest illegal robots) solution, even if causes rework. And I know that rework is annoying.

Jibsy

15-01-2013, 23:55

I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...

As others have pointed out this is probably the optimal (fewest illegal robots) solution, even if causes rework. And I know that rework is annoying.

One day later and that 5% would've included us...

I think calling the rework annoying is an understatement... Full design and CAD just having some of the details added, and now we have to change it completely.

I'm still reeling that this drastic a change has been made this long after kickoff. Do you suppose the GDC will reconsider given the backlash and how clear the Q and A seemed to make the rules before? :mad:

Ian Curtis

16-01-2013, 00:05

One day later and that 5% would've included us...

I think calling the rework annoying is an understatement... Full design and CAD just having some of the details added, and now we have to change it completely.

I'm still reeling that this drastic a change has been made this long after kickoff. Do you suppose the GDC will reconsider given the backlash and how clear the Q and A seemed to make the rules before? :mad:

Actually the more I think it's not a good change. But I'm still pretty sure the 5% comment stands.

Donut

16-01-2013, 00:10

Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

When the seeding algorithm was changed in 2010 is probably the biggest change ever during the season. I think it was a good change (gave incentive to win) but that is a huge change to have mid-season.

They've changed size dimensions before as well, I don't know if it's always been so critical to a task like this though.

Jibsy

16-01-2013, 00:15

Actually the more I think it's not a good change. But I'm still pretty sure the 5% comment stands.

I don't think any major change like that is a good one at this point. Even if it makes climbing easier in some people's eyes, I would say that 95% of teams who are actually going to be climbing successfully to the 30 points (perhaps only a few) already (had) a design that was well on its way, probably nearing completion. No sense making many many teams start over, even if there are a few new options that they had previously ruled out.

I agree with your 5% comment; however, manufacturing and resources aside, time is still the most valuable asset in an FRC season. There will definitely be other solutions, I just have a hard time believing that this rule will result in more successful 30 point climbs (which is my interpretation of the purpose of the change).

BJC

16-01-2013, 00:17

mrnoble

16-01-2013, 00:20

Is it possible this rule change was more in response to concerns that robots that fall over would be in continuous violation, rather than concerns about complex climbing mechanisms? I know that was discussed as a concern at the beginning of the season.

Still stinks though, especially for cool ideas like some that have been spoiled now. Very sorry indeed, folks.:(

Tristan Lall

16-01-2013, 00:27

Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?
Yes.

2002: Rules and rulings associated devices that look like motorized tape measures were reinterpreted at the events. (Affected parts usage and entanglement.)
2003: Rules for reacting against field elements were changed in March, after the build season. (Ruined 68's strategy.)
2011: A rule against strategically blockading the field was inserted in week 5.
2012: Changed the definition of bridges in week 6. (Ruined 3928's strategy.)

Edit: For clarity, week numbers identified above were during the build season.

Aren_Hill

16-01-2013, 00:33

Yes.

2002: Rules and rulings associated devices that look like motorized tape measures were reinterpreted at the events. (Affected parts usage and entanglement.)
2003: Rules for reacting against field elements were changed in March, after the build season. (Ruined 68's strategy.)
2011: A rule against strategically blockading the field was inserted in week 5.
2012: Changed the definition of bridges in week 6. (Ruined 3928's strategy.)

I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow :rolleyes:

THE DYNAMO

16-01-2013, 00:36

when this update came out, I realize that our ingenious and rather fast climbing design was previous illegal, but it is now 100% ok. sighs of relief all around our shop table, but i can see it's not so great for other teams. sorry to all those team out there, i know how it feels since our balancing arms from last year were ruled out late in the season because they sometimes touched the polycarb sheet under the bridge.

Kevin Sevcik

16-01-2013, 00:38

Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?The Great Tape Measure Fiasco in '02 (Zone Zeal). Game was shooting soccer balls in movable goals. You got points for all the balls in a goal on the opposite side of the field from your driver station. You ALSO got points if part of your robot was on the same side of the field as your driver station.

Obviously an incentive to be in two places at once. Teams Q&A'd for ruling on what constituted an entanglement hazard, etc. and it seemed clear that anything long and flimsy was an entanglement hazard and illegal. So some teams went to a lot of trouble making mini-robots or rigid extension devices to reach across the field to score those bonus points.

Week 1 regionals and some few teams show up with motorized tape measures that they shoot across the field. Which seemed obviously illegal. Except the GDC ruled that they were, in fact, legal because they

And thus all the teams that put in a lot of work and engineering to come up with a non-entangling solution were really miffed at a huge rule change after the end of build season.

Grim Tuesday

16-01-2013, 00:46

Week 1 regionals and some few teams show up with motorized tape measures that they shoot across the field. Which seemed obviously illegal. Except the GDC ruled that they were, in fact, legal because they

Wait why? This was a very interesting story, pity you stopped right when it was getting interesting :P

Steve Kaneb

16-01-2013, 01:02

I think the despair expressed in this thread might be premature.

The updated rule reads (in part): While in contact with the PYRAMID, a ROBOT

may not have its horizontal dimensions exceed a 54 in. diameter vertical cylinder relative to the ROBOT

Nowhere in this rule do the words "in its starting configuration" appear. It's most likely that in any configuration where your robot can fit within a virtual 54" cylinder that extends "vertically", while still fulfilling the rules of robot height (not to exceed 84") and the rule about the vertical plane that extends from a line 54" from the pyramid, that your robot is legally within the volume limits.

I foresee a referee noting a possible infraction, then checking after the match by having the team reposition their robot as it was when he had doubts to its legality (even if it has to stand on a bumper!). Once the robot is in the configuration, a hoop is passed over the robot. If the hoop can be extended vertically without contacting the robot, the robot was legal.

efoote868

16-01-2013, 01:09

When you look at the rule change, it seems that the intent of the rule could be to prevent a team from latching on to the pyramid and then extending towards the side of the playing field, in order to attempt to blockade the field (circumventing the other rule?).

chadr03

16-01-2013, 01:31

Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close to sending parts our to be machined. I hope the GDC changes its mind. Since in all likelihood this bot will not come to life in its current form I thought I would share.

http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/FRC/old_rules.bmp
Old Rules - Legal
http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/FRC/new_rules.bmp
New Rules - Illegal

sanddrag

16-01-2013, 01:50

I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...You called? We have already put in over 12 hours of machine setup and run time for parts and spent thousands of dollars on parts and materials. Thank goodness this change does not in any way affect our design.

artdutra04

16-01-2013, 02:29

BornaE

16-01-2013, 02:46

Our climbing solution is now illegal.

We had clearly defined parameters at the beginning of the build season. Why on Earth would they change now?

how could it have been leegal before and illegal now?

Tristan Lall

16-01-2013, 03:18

Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration.

Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings.
That's what I'm hoping they do as well. (Apart from the thing that could be mistaken for a division slash in your example—but I think FIRST can figure out appropriate wording that fits the rulebook.)

It allows officials to use the least-restrictive interpretation of what it means to be robot-oriented, and lets much of the existing design work stand.

On the other hand, it may go against the GDC's intent, but that's the price FIRST needs to pay for not adequately capturing the intent in the first two versions.

More practically, it's hard to judge the size of a 3-D cylinder superimposed over a moving robot climbing an obstacle. But since it was hard enough to judge the size of that cylinder when it was oriented with respect to an obvious reference, presumably FIRST has thought about this sort of thing and can devise some way of enforcing it when the orientation is completely arbitrary. (Hopefully "ignore it" doesn't figure into the final cut.)

Chris is me

16-01-2013, 04:08

how could it have been leegal before and illegal now?

If the robot is not close to parallel to the ground while climbing, a hanger that was legal before would be illegal now. 1529 has a good example of a now illegal climber on their blog: http://frc1529.wordpress.com/

Mr. Lim

16-01-2013, 06:03

Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close to sending parts our to be machined. I hope the GDC changes its mind. Since in all likelihood this bot will not come to life in its current form I thought I would share.

Pictures

I'd also be worried about the cylinder when you first start your climb.

Do you have a cylinder model of your robot when it is still on the floor, and has just grabbed on to the 1st rung?

Most corner climbers with a squarish to longish drivetrain will have a hard time reaching the 1st rung without breaking the cylinder.

Not impossible, but it's very tight.

Tom Line

16-01-2013, 06:59

Hopefully this is just a wording inconsistency and a clarification will be coming where the GDC states they did not just 'turn the rule on it's side'.

/pun intended.

Gary Dillard

16-01-2013, 07:21

Tristan already brought up some good points (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1216153&postcount=21) as how the definition of coordinate systems affects what is "relative to the robot".

IMHO, simplest way to word the volume restriction rule would be to state that:

Such wording would not include any limitations as to how you define the orientation of your cylinder. A good way to visualize this is using a giant bucket test.

Basically, at any given point in time, your robot must be able to be dropped into a giant virtual bucket that's Ø54" x 60"/84". As long as it can fit inside this bucket in some orientation, it's a legal configuration.

Much simpler for people to comprehend, and it does not negatively affect teams who based their designs on the pre 2013-01-15 update rulings.

And that would make it consistent with FTC definitions as I understand them - your robot has to fit in a box in any orientation (I don't know FTC rules, someone told me this when we were sizing the minibot). Oh no, a new sizing box! Al, bring the forktruck back in.

Thankfully our design -which we spent excessive time on to get it within the previous rules - will still work with the new definition. Probably would have saved us half the week if we had this definition to start wth. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

rsegrest

16-01-2013, 07:30

...teams who are actually going to be climbing successfully to the 30 points (perhaps only a few) already (had) a design that was well on its way, probably nearing completion.

Which is exactly where we were.

"...I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow"

I'm not so sure I agree with you. For my small town team who just started getting noticed by the corporations (think funding) we have been courting for 6 years we were looking forward to possibly the best robot we have ever built/designed. We have (had) a corner climbing bot that we belived would be among the best climbers out there...now? Who knows what we will do until the team meets this evening. With limited engineering resources and funding this has the potential to hurt the morale of more than you may think. Frankly I know it has damaged mine. :(

chadr03

16-01-2013, 08:49

I'd also be worried about the cylinder when you first start your climb.

Do you have a cylinder model of your robot when it is still on the floor, and has just grabbed on to the 1st rung?

Most corner climbers with a squarish to longish drivetrain will have a hard time reaching the 1st rung without breaking the cylinder.

Not impossible, but it's very tight.

It fit and had about 8 inches to spare.

pfreivald

16-01-2013, 09:05

Don't forget about frame cutouts. It's possible to park the very center of your robot right on the bottom of the bottom post and grab the first rung without extending outside your frame perimeter at all.

JamesCH95

16-01-2013, 09:23

Our climber design is now illegal per the general interpretation of the updated rules. I had placed orders to McMaster, AndyMark, VEX, and BaneBots literally hours before the update. Now we have spent a good chunk of money and most of our PDV's on a design that is illegal. We've also wasted 10 days working on CAD and prototypes. :mad:

I have lived through all of aforementioned 'major' rules changes. Those changes, while frustrating for some, were designed to capture what was clearly the spirit of the inital rules and/or to prevent game-breaking designs that would ruin the event for other teams.

The big difference this time is that this rules change is arbitrary. It serves no more purpose than to make some designs illegal and others legal based on the arbitrary orientation of the robot.

nickpaterni

16-01-2013, 09:32

The big difference this time is that this rules change is arbitrary. It serves no more purpose than to make some designs illegal and others legal based on the arbitrary orientation of the robot.

I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

Cal578

16-01-2013, 09:37

Here is my interpretation of the new rule and how is kills our design that was so close ...
http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/FRC/old_rules.bmp
Old Rules - Legal
http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/FRC/new_rules.bmp
New Rules - Illegal

Our design was similar, and now appears to be illegal. I've submitted to the Q&A on this.
Q184 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/184/per-g23-1-is-it-legal-if-a-robot-climbs-the-corner-of-the-pyramid-robot-frame-is-parallel-to-the-corner-bar-and-extends-an-appendage-towards-the-second-rung-for-a-total-distance-of-70-inches-htt)

I agree with what a few others have said: I hope the GDC clarifies that the old designs are still legal.

Gregor

16-01-2013, 09:38

It fit and had about 8 inches to spare.

Hope you are including bumpers in that, seems a bit much.

BJC

16-01-2013, 09:46

rsegrest

16-01-2013, 09:50

I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

Absolutely...

Andy A.

16-01-2013, 09:57

I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

The assumption is that the original rule was 'unenforceable', as there is no easy way for an inspector to verify if a robot could breach the cylinder in all orientations on the pyramid, and impossible for a ref to determine that during a match. Orienting the cylinder relative to the robot makes this pretty easy to check in the pit; have the team extend any arm/appendages and measure.

At least, that's the leading theory I've heard. Pretty lame when they figured that out a week in, after teams spent time, money and effort working around a thoroughly clarified rule. I sincerely hope FIRST gets it's head right here and realizes how frustrating it is for teams to be dealing with fundamental rules changes well into the build season.

JamesCH95

16-01-2013, 10:01

I find it hard to believe this is totally arbitrary. I think if the change stays, GDC should really post their reasoning for the change. I would assume this is some sort of game breaking or safety issue, but it would be nice to hear an official reason.

The only semi-rational explanation I've heard is that the old rule would be difficult for refs to enforce on the fly.

The proposed '54in cylinder in any orientation' rule is equally as enforcible as the 'robot-oriented 54in cylinder' but allows for a much wider variety of designs.

Francis-134

16-01-2013, 10:12

I really don't see a reason that both virtical and robot oriented cylinders could be legal. The only thing this could possibly result in is a greater varience in design and more robots climbing for 30-- which are both good things.

Regards, Bryan

Not to try and delve into the heads of the GDC members, but I believe they changed the rule so that it was reasonably policeable. You cannot within reason attempt to replicate the orientation of a robot that was hanging in the air with a cylinder that is perpendicular to the ground. However, you can very easily re-position a robot on the ground and see if it fits into a cylinder relative to the robot itself.

Making it so both configurations are legal would negate the purpose of the rule change to begin with, or so it would seem.

Jon Stratis

16-01-2013, 10:16

The basic reason I can see them doing this is for enforability. It's already difficult to determine if the robot will fit within the 54" cylinder when on flat ground. Robots breaking the cylinder when transitioning between levels while climbing (especially unintentional) is basically impossible for the refrees to be certain of. In close matches no one wants the deciding call to be made by a ref who from 15 feet away may have seen a robot momentarily break an invisible cylinder...

This.

It's certainly possible, but very difficult, under the old rule to examine a robot and tell the refs "if the plane of the robots bumpers tilts more than 15 degrees while climbing and this appendage is fully extended, then it's illegal." Telling them that, however, and judging that on the field is a whole different story. Visually telling how long an appendage is extended is difficult, telling a precise angle is even more difficult. Combine the two in a moving environment, and it's an impossible task for the refs.

The result? You would have two camps of teams. Those that paid very close attention to this rule and how it affects their robot while in different orientations while climbing, and those who didn't. You'd see both groups of teams climbing the pyramids, and no penalties called other than obvious, egregious violations of the rule. And one group, the group that's really upset right now, would be really upset that they spent so much time and effort complying with the rule, when a "simpler" design they decided was illegal is actually allowed.

It's a catch-22 - either way the GDC went with this would make teams upset. Personally, I think the decision to update the rule to make it more enforceable is the right way to go. I might moan and complain if it forced my team to change our design, but it would still be the right way to go.

What's the point of a rule if its impossible to be enforced on the field?

lemiant

16-01-2013, 10:28

Why didn't thy know that a week and a half ago?

Andy A.

16-01-2013, 10:28

This.

It's a catch-22 - either way the GDC went with this would make teams upset. Personally, I think the decision to update the rule to make it more enforceable is the right way to go. I might moan and complain if it forced my team to change our design, but it would still be the right way to go.

What's the point of a rule if its impossible to be enforced on the field?

I agree that the rule is pointless if it can't be 'enforced', but I might suggest that enforcement is probably not what FIRST should be aiming for, rather, the goal should be compliance. Maybe that's a semantic difference, but it seems relevant to me right now.

I'd be happy to demonstrate that the robot design is legal per the original rule. Hauling it onto a pyramid and measuring would be difficult at best, but this is an engineering contest. We can do a simple report that examines the robot design in climbing orientation(s), bring that to inspection and use it to demonstrate to the inspectors satisfaction that we're legal. That kind of documentation is common enough in other competitions and business.

A better solution is simply to write rules from the start that can be checked easily for compliance during inspection. Failing that, I would rather have unenforceable rules that are at least consistent, then the current moving goal post. After all, it might be moved only to ensure compliance that was already going to be there in 99% of cases anyways.

Tem1514 Mentor

16-01-2013, 10:34

Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.

We could only hope for a dream to come true..

falconmaster

16-01-2013, 10:39

I am very upset with this recent rule change. A rule change like this shakes the confidence teams have in FIRST. I though about this all last night. My team has spent a tremendous amount of time to make a climbing mechanism that fit the previous rules to find out that all this time was for nothing. I can see teams being more timid in the future because of this kind of action. Its not professional and looks like they had not put much thought into it. This climbing task is one of the most complicated ones that FIRST has asked us to do and playing with the rules concerning this is very frustrating. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen, but sometimes adjustments need to be made for those mistakes on both sides. Flexibility in the rules would seem to be the best solution rather than the hard steadfast "this is our rule" approach. I, however, am not paid the "big bucks" so my opinion may be wrong but it doesn't feel right to me. If I made a mistake and people suffered because of it and I wanted to keep the integrity of the game I would compromise for the good of the order. As Spock said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". Spock may not be real but his quote sounds good to me. My team now is redesigning possible new solutions, and will be buying or making new parts because that's life, such that it is........

Taylor

16-01-2013, 10:39

1. This change is in direct contrast not only to the rules but several Q&A responses. Why the contradiction?
2. I don't buy the "enforceable" argument - this program is built on implied compliance. Example: bag n tag.
3. I really really hope TU4 says robots contacting pyramid can be either/or.

Gregor

16-01-2013, 11:21

Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.

We could only hope for a dream to come true..

I really doubt it. Refer to Tristan's post about game changes midway through the season. Some were arguably more of a change than this, and there was no build season extention.

Trent B

16-01-2013, 11:33

Which is exactly where we were.

"...I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow"

I'm not so sure I agree with you. For my small town team who just started getting noticed by the corporations (think funding) we have been courting for 6 years we were looking forward to possibly the best robot we have ever built/designed. We have (had) a corner climbing bot that we belived would be among the best climbers out there...now? Who knows what we will do until the team meets this evening. With limited engineering resources and funding this has the potential to hurt the morale of more than you may think. Frankly I know it has damaged mine. :(

Neutrino got burned on their design last year when the definition of the bridge was changed late last year. This is early by comparison. That's the reasoning behind Aren's remark.

Brian Selle

16-01-2013, 11:39

This rule change completely invalidates our climbing concept. Countless hours of design, money spent on parts, fabrication started on a drivetrain, all for nothing. The rug has just been pulled out from under our feet. Simply demoralizing.

It's great to hear that the change helps some teams, but seriously... teams that have been following the rules and the spirit of the game are now being punished? It goes beyond reason. The only reasonable and fair way to change this rule is make it more inclusive (cylinder in any orientation, or vertical/robot oriented team's choice). I hope GDC reconsiders this change and/or clarifies the definition of relative to the ROBOT to be more inclusive.

A rule change like this shakes the confidence teams have in FIRST.

Couldn't agree more.

wireties

16-01-2013, 11:53

This rule change completely invalidates our climbing concept. Countless hours of design, money spent on parts, fabrication started on a drivetrain, all for nothing. The rug has just been pulled out from under our feet. Simply demoralizing.

Same here - our mechanism must be re-positioned and our frame changed. This was a big oversight! Arghhhh...

pntbll1313

16-01-2013, 12:25

Siri

16-01-2013, 12:56

This rule change may be because it was difficult to enforce the previous one, but it certainly wasn't impossible. We are engineers, and if you are building your robot fit inside a vertical cylinder you probably can find a way to prove that it resides in it. I know they aren't set up for it but maybe there are autonomous ways to call violations of this rule. Four cameras mounted far above the pyramids with a little logic to determine if there is a 54" violation? Maybe that's just a dumb idea I thought of while writing this response but I do think it could be enforced. I know someone could think of a way. Just because it would be difficult to do so is something is a reason they should have thought about before releasing the rules, or the Q&A, or the second Q&A...Exactly. They did think about it on the Q&A...and ruled in exactly the opposite direction. <Q106> The potential for a ROBOT to violate [G23] will be assessed at Inspection per [R03]. During a MATCH, Referees will call infractions to the best of their abilities. It is in the Team's best interest to minimize any ambiguity during game play.
If you're not sure it'll work, at least don't answer the question until you're clear. They answered related Q&As multiple times (I count 4). I'm not convinced enforcement is the reason behind this change.

If anyone's interested, Q188 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Questions.php) is requesting a rationale (as nicely as I could think of) for G23-1. We'll see how much trouble it gets me in--though they have offered explanations in the past.

PVCpirate

16-01-2013, 13:04

Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.

We could only hope for a dream to come true..

They can't, at least not by that much. Week 1 regionals start on the 28th, which is 9 days after stop-build day. I would say the Monday of that week would be the latest they could move it to, but I don't think it will happen.

rsegrest

16-01-2013, 13:08

If anyone's interested, Q188 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Questions.php) is requesting a rationale (as nicely as I could think of) for G23-1. We'll see how much trouble it gets me in--though they have offered explanations in the past.

Ummm...maybe I'm missing something but I cannot find Q188 (and yes I have searched the latest Q&A pdf). What does Q188 refer to if you don't mind?

Note: Nevermind...just realized that Q188 is asking for rationale not giving one... *slapping forehead*...

engunneer

16-01-2013, 13:10

I don't think they will change it again at this point. These seem to be the available options:

Revert the rule to pre TU3. This would create massive confusion and would shake confidence more.

Leave as is. This would only create moderate confusion (the is no confusion-less model at this point). This is the most enforcable, and likely way.

Allow teams to choose which version to use. This is the hardest to enforce but easier on teams. How will the refs keep track of what team on the field uses which cylinder orientation?

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing ( leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3.

Any other options?

I think they will leave it as is because they want to encourage climbing and not many teams could both climb and shoot well under pre-TU3 rules.

M. Mellott

16-01-2013, 13:24

Its not professional and looks like they had not put much thought into it.

In the past, IIRC, games were developed by the GDC later in the year, which meant that there was less time spent on the writing of the rules, and as such there were occational errors. We dealt with the grammar/spelling errors and moved on.

However, that was not the case here, correct? I believe this game was conceptualized and developed quite a while ago. So, in theory, they had a lot more time to develop the rules, critique them, re-write them, brain-storm ways teams could bypass the rules, re-re-write the rules, rinse, repeat, until they had an iron-clad document. The wonderful folks on the GDC are intelligent, experienced people, and they should know ways that teams think, and write rules that avoid ambiguity. They should never have had to make this big of a rule change had the rules been properly vetted, and it looks bad on their part.

AcesPease

16-01-2013, 13:27

I don't think they will change it again at this point.

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing ( leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3.

I find the wording of the update to be very confusing, to the point where it may be that what you suggested is what they meant. Sadly I thought the rule was pretty clear before this update.

Cal578

16-01-2013, 13:51

I don't think they will change it again at this point. These seem to be the available options:

Revert the rule to pre TU3. This would create massive confusion and would shake confidence more.

Leave as is. This would only create moderate confusion (the is no confusion-less model at this point). This is the most enforcable, and likely way.

Allow teams to choose which version to use. This is the hardest to enforce but easier on teams. How will the refs keep track of what team on the field uses which cylinder orientation?

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing (leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3...

I bolded the last option because I actually believe it's a good one. I don't think it would hurt confidence; it might restore some (it would for me, because it's more reasonable, and fair to teams that already had a workable design). It would not be very confusing, and easier to enforce.

It would be good to hear from some past inspectors and referees on the enforceability question.

chadr03

16-01-2013, 14:48

Hope you are including bumpers in that, seems a bit much.

http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/undefined/side_view-1.bmp

CalTran

16-01-2013, 15:29

img
Can we have a few more dimensions?

JamesCH95

16-01-2013, 15:30

Can we have a few more dimensions?

See this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110991&highlight=visualizing) I started showing the 54in cylinder, pyramid, and typical robot profiles. It works. It's close, but it works.

CalTran

16-01-2013, 15:34

See this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110991&highlight=visualizing) I started showing the 54in cylinder, pyramid, and typical robot profiles. It works. It's close, but it works.
I meant his robot dimensions. It seems awfully small to keep his arm inside the frame perimeter for starting.

Gregor

16-01-2013, 15:43

http://chadr03.webs.com/photos/undefined/side_view-1.bmp

Good, just making sure. :)

Cal578

16-01-2013, 15:45

Our design was similar, and now appears to be illegal. I've submitted to the Q&A on this.
Q184 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/184/per-g23-1-is-it-legal-if-a-robot-climbs-the-corner-of-the-pyramid-robot-frame-is-parallel-to-the-corner-bar-and-extends-an-appendage-towards-the-second-rung-for-a-total-distance-of-70-inches-htt)

I agree with what a few others have said: I hope the GDC clarifies that the old designs are still legal.

I just got the answer to my Q184 (https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/184/per-g23-1-is-it-legal-if-a-robot-climbs-the-corner-of-the-pyramid-robot-frame-is-parallel-to-the-corner-bar-and-extends-an-appendage-towards-the-second-rung-for-a-total-distance-of-70-inches-htt).

Q. Per G23-1, is it legal if a robot climbs the corner of the pyramid (robot frame is parallel to the corner bar), and extends an appendage towards the second rung for a total distance of 70 inches? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1216338&postcount=66 has a good picture of this.
A. The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.
(emphasis mine)

As I read it, previous designs should still be legal. I'm pretty sure ours is. Woohoo!

Jibsy

16-01-2013, 15:45

The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.

Woo! Back to the old design! Thank goodness...

I feel like they could have been far more clear on the wording, but hey - I'm quite happy!

EDIT: Cal beat me to it.

chadr03

16-01-2013, 15:51

Can we have a few more dimensions?

I meant his robot dimensions. It seems awfully small to keep his arm inside the frame perimeter for starting.

You are right it is a pretty small bot the frame is in the 20" x 23" neighborhood. Tight fit for all of the electronics but doable. The arms would have to be extended up right to fit inside the frame perimeter/starting config, but would be shorter than 60"

The purpose of this forum is to clarify Rules. We will not use it to declare strategies or designs unequivocally legal as there are factors in play beyond this forum. The 54 in. cylinder is not fixed to a specific reference point on the ROBOT when the ROBOT is contacting the PYRAMID. In other words, if a 54 in. right cylinder with a height of 84 in. could, in at least one orientation, fit around the ROBOT, the ROBOT is in compliance with [G23-1]-A.

Thank you GDC. I don't have to pull my hair out now. I only had to give away about half of the trade secrets. :)

BigJ

16-01-2013, 15:58

I'm happy with the (pretty liberal :P) interpretation of the word "relative" here. Hopefully the temporarily-illegal teams didn't redesign everything over the course of the school day.

Jibsy

16-01-2013, 16:13

I'm happy with the (pretty liberal :P) interpretation of the word "relative" here. Hopefully the temporarily-illegal teams didn't redesign everything over the course of the school day.

I was sure working hard at adjusting the geometry of our current design to make it legal. I was having to make some pretty significant compromises though. But hey, I'm sure I learned a thing or two about it. Will probably be able to make our current climbing mechanism more compact.

MechEng83

16-01-2013, 16:14

Check out Frank's Blog post for today:
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-team-update-1-15-2013
In the words of one of our engineers, the new size cylinder rules are a superset of the old rules. Put another way: If you had designed a climbing robot legal under the old rules, it should still be legal under the new rules. If you can put any 54” right cylinder with a height of 84” around the robot, in any orientation, at any moment while it is climbing, and no part of the robot is more than 54” away from the base of the pyramid, your robot does not violate the new rules.
Emphasis in original quote.

Tristan Lall

16-01-2013, 17:09

That's one problem solved, I think. This was the best way to handle the issue.

Among the remaining problems is that the competitive balance has shifted: now climbing is an easier task, and thus teams that chose to do it may not be as unique as they were counting on. But that's definitely a lesser evil.

Also, teams that constrained their designs according to the original rule now have to decide whether they're still competitive in this somewhat larger design space (with robots that don't obey the original constraint). Although they're not forced to rework their design, they may nevertheless choose to do so, for fear of being less effective. Given the particulars of the challenge, I think that's at worst a medium-sized evil—but most likely a non-issue for most teams.

ThirteenOfTwo

16-01-2013, 17:14

Adam Freeman

16-01-2013, 18:32

First off...THANK YOU GDC for the common sense approach to these design constraints.

Welp. Those of us who had decided to concentrate on frisbee manipulation, design a simple ten-point hang, and not think about anything higher until after Stop Build Day are in luck. Thanks for the "temporarily illegal" design ideas, guys... I feel kind of dirty having seen them, but I can't exactly forget 'em now.

Secondly, even with the relaxed design constraints this task is far from easy. "Climbing" a robot through three levels of pyramid, with at a minimum of maybe 3 (probably more) distict climbing motions is still the hardest thing we have had to do with a robot.

This challenge is frustrating even the very best designers in FRC.

If your design is not well thought out, designed for robustness, and executed perfectly you are probably not going to be attempting to climb the tower for very long before you fall off and break some or all of your robot.

Most designs we have thought of required total integration into the chassis, drivetrain, shooting, etc..., this is not just something you add on an event.

Good luck to all that attempt a 30pt climb.

David Doerr

16-01-2013, 19:27

First off...THANK YOU GDC for the common sense approach to these design constraints.

Adam, I second that... THANK YOU! Did the GDC do this simply to inject more excitement into the build season? Good thing my doctor just changed my blood pressure medication.

The climbing parts we ordered just arrived a few hours ago, and now it's back to our original design. We'll see how successful we are getting it to work.

Donut

16-01-2013, 21:05

With this clarification the rule change just changed to one of my favorite updates from the GDC. This allows for the sizing cylinder to be parallel to the pyramid while the frame is not, which really opens up the design options.

Time to re-analyze the design again!

DampRobot

16-01-2013, 21:57

I haven't read all of the thread, but a question was answered on the Q and A that implies that if the robot can fit in the 54" cylinder at all, it is legal. To find the question, download the PDF of the answered questions for Game, and search for "G23-1." It is the only question referencing this rule at the moment.

Now is the moment to read what was so wisely written on the back of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galexy: "Don't Panic."

Edit: Just saw.

rsegrest

16-01-2013, 22:42

Welp. Those of us who had decided to concentrate on frisbee manipulation, design a simple ten-point hang, and not think about anything higher until after Stop Build Day are in luck. Thanks for the "temporarily illegal" design ideas, guys... I feel kind of dirty having seen them, but I can't exactly forget 'em now.

You are welcome ;) . I am just glad the GDC clarified this the way they did. Although, I did have a pretty sleepless night over the whole thing. I can say that I will be printing out that question and answer to take with us to competition so that if we are questioned at all by the refs we can show the ruling to them on the spot.